Hey, there! Log in / Register

ICE says screw Sanctuary Cities; conducts raids here

ICE reports it arrested 50 people in Massachusetts in raids targeted specifically at communities that have declared themselves "sanctuary cities."

The operation targeted individuals who have violated U.S. immigration laws, prioritizing aliens with criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, known gang members and affiliates, immigration fugitives and those who re-entered the U.S. after deportation. Individuals with active DACA were not targeted for arrest. ...

ICE’s goal is to build cooperative, respectful relationships with our law enforcement partners to help prevent dangerous criminal aliens from being released back onto the streets. Non-cooperation policies severely undermine that effort at the expense of public safety

ICE gave some particulars on just one of the Massachusetts arrests:

In Boston, a citizen of India who entered the U.S. illegally and who was convicted of indecent assault/battery on a person over 14 and was required to register as a sex offender.

Earlier:
ICE agents doing a little skulking around in East Boston.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 

Ad:

Comments

ICE’s goal is to build cooperative, respectful relationships with our law enforcement partners to help prevent dangerous criminal aliens from being released back onto the streets. Non-cooperation policies severely undermine that effort at the expense of public safety

It's not the police's job to be federal immigration enforces. Just like it isn't the polices' job to be National Guard subsitutes, and vice versa. The increasing expectation that local community police forces serve as a paramilitary extension of federal political aims is dangerous and fucked up, and leads to a breakdown in trust.

up
Voting closed 0

ICE is not credible at all on who they target. They say they target undocumented immigrants who are the "worst of the worst" but that is false. Instead they'll deport people who show up at a schedule meeting to get their green card for having a traffic violation. Sometimes they can't find anything pejorative in the persons record.

Focusing their activities in communities and cities that seek greater public safety by having the police force not ask about immigration status is pure political retribution.

After Trump claimed ICE would focus on the 'worst of the worst' he announced ICE was 'taking off the cloves.' Entering the country without authority is a civil violation not a criminal violation. Living here is not a violation of law, that said, you are subject to deportation.

BTW, it was Boston Police and FBI joint task force that arrested MS-13 and put together the case to prosecute them for homicide, gang recruitment and sales of illegal narcotics, not ICE.

The Globe reports that 20 of the 50 people arrested in Mass have no record at all.

ACLU

The blatant targeting of cities and states that do not collaborate with the federal deportation machine reveals the Trump administration’s true motives: to retaliate

WBUR:

Lawyers' Committee Claims ICE Raids In Massachusetts Are Retaliatory
Fifty people were arrested on federal immigration charges in Massachusetts during a four day Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation that ended earlier this week. The majority of those taken into custody did have criminal records according to ICE, though many did not. And now a local group, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, is filing a Freedom of Information Act or FOIA request with the federal government to learn about the basis for and the scope of those arrests. With us on the line is the group's executive director, Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal. Thanks for joining us.

Sen Warren calls this targeting fundamentally wrong/

up
Voting closed 2

Stick your thumbs in your ears and go nyaa nyaa nyaa nyaa, expect a few arrows on your direction.

up
Voting closed 1

Next is Jeff "I liked the KKK until I found out they smoke marijuana" Sessions coming for states that have legalized weed. Conservatives love to talk about states rights and small government but their actions show they are complete hypocrites.

up
Voting closed 3

Of THE UNITED STATE of AMERICA is not determined by states! Your "point" to beyond ridiculous, buy hey when you start off by name calling you augment probably sucks.

up
Voting closed 0

The states and municipalities aren't tasked with immigration, either.

Or did your critical thinking module blank out before you got to that?

up
Voting closed 0

He didn't call Jeff Sessions a name, he quoted him.

The prosecution of marijuana and heroin use started in the Nixon administration for political purposes. Hippies and people of color were tricky dick's political enemies. For all his war mongering and criminalizing health issues for politics, he founded the EPA and Title IX.

Jeff Sessions lied under oath during his senate confirmation hearings three times, to Sen Franken, to Senator Leahy in writing and in his filing. He has acknowledged it by amending his testimony. He has not been prosecuted for perjury.

Sen Warren was reading Coretta Scott King's Letter to the govt about Jeff Sessions nomination for US attorney when she was shutdown by Mitch McConnell for violating senate rules. No free speech for the senator from Massachusetts on the question of Jeff Sessions suitability for the position of Attorney General and no debate on the merit of the ideas in Coretta Scott King's letter. But Milo spoke this week in Berkeley.

up
Voting closed 0

Yep, and I find the flip-side equally amusing: Stuff like this makes liberals rediscover the concept of "states rights" that they otherwise typically smear as just a dog whistle term for racism.

Hypocrites everywhere.

up
Voting closed 0

So asking a party to stand by its principles is too much?

From my point of view, the concept of "states rights" is fine. The problem is giving red states enough leash to race to the bottom of the pack and then the blue states have to bail them out for their dumb decisions.

up
Voting closed 0

When you defy a supreme court order to integrate schools and call that 'states rights', it's not the same as telling the federal government you wont illegally detain immigrants for them-- detainer request-- or do their job for them-- ask about immigration status.

Congress has failed to do it's job. The senate passed an immigration reform bill, the house wouldn't give it a vote. Most Americans and lawmakers think the system is broken. The far right thinks brown people threaten the existence of white people. The Trump admin takes their queues from the far right freaks at heritage, freedom caucus, Rep. Steve King and on immigration, Donald Trump. By the way Mar-a-Lago petitioned the govt for more foriegn workers on HB-1 visas.

up
Voting closed 0

The idea behind Sanctuary Cities is that the local government won't aid in immigration related matters such as checking for someone's nationality or holding them after they would otherwise be free to go after being arrested/detained. It's not about offering them immunity or protection.

For the record I'm opposed to the actions of ICE/Trump but the recent actions shouldn't surprise anyone. If anything else, Sessions is going to everything in his power to hurt these cities.

up
Voting closed 0

Because there were plenty of multi-city raids when He was in office as well.

up
Voting closed 0

Obama was certainly not without fault in many policies and actions. People believe the lie that he was soft on immigration.

up
Voting closed 2

Obama enforced immigration laws to an extent that most conservatives will not knowledge, because it plays into the 'Democrats are soft on immigration' narrative. But one thing he did not do was instruct families to be torn apart by initiating the DACA program - but under Trump, great pains are taken to demonize all immigrants and paint them all as dangerous gang members and murderers of young blond women, when most just want to cut lawns and clean hotel rooms to feed their kids, or flee gang violence in their own countries. That is what separates Obama form Trump - one executed the law without cynically seeking political approbation from xenophobes, and the other one does so with great relish.

up
Voting closed 1

I looked up the government stats a while ago and there were more deportations under Obama's administration than Bush (43) and they had a stated focus on removing violent/dangerous criminals. If you listened to the right wing you'd think that the Obama administration was giving all of the illegals a welcome basket with a cell phone, housing voucher, and a job when they crossed the border.

up
Voting closed 1

The whole point of sanctuary cities is that the state and local authorities are not going to enable federal civil violation enforcement. That means the people there will not be deported if local officials know they are here. It doesn't mean the federal officials can't do their job. And in fact *since* they are getting aid from local officials in non-sanctuary locations, they'd be foolish *not* to target sanctuary cities for their own raiding.

This doesn't have to be punishment or retaliation. It's easily interpreted as good game planning for working with limited resources.

The problem with ICE is that under Obama and now Trump, they've become indiscriminate. *Any* illegal is as good as any other to get rid of by their rules (which is not true). They've expanded their workforce and budget unreasonably (granted, still nothing compared to the military and healthcare costs). And they've begun using really shitty dehumanizing tactics like detaining parents dropping their kids off at school (but not the kids, etc.).

up
Voting closed 0

If you concentrate illegal immigrants in one location, then you can expect stronger enforcement of immigration laws in that location. If you explicitly advertise that there's a concentration of illegal immigrants in a location, then you can really expect stronger enforcement there.

If Cambridge announced it would be a haven for income tax evaders, then you'd expect a lot more IRS audits of Cantabrigians.

up
Voting closed 0

Just doing their jobs.

up
Voting closed 1

Where have I heard that before ... oh. Yeah.

up
Voting closed 1

Where???

up
Voting closed 1

Don't assume he's only coming after the immigrants. Civil rights aren't important when there's so much money to be made with for-profit prisons.

Evil, evil, disgustingly evil — wave the flag in public, while trampling its meaning of liberty and justice for all.

up
Voting closed 1

Jeff Sessions is in charge of DOJ which is not the cabinet agency over this. ICE falls under Homeland Security which is a separate cabinet agency.

up
Voting closed 1

Sessions has invested in private prison companies that house detainees.

Pull your head out and look a little deeper, please.

up
Voting closed 1

If you want to talk about Sessions possibly having an ulterior motive for appreciating ICE raids you could add a comment without acting like a dick. On the other hand the comment I was replying to was specific about the "police" that Sessions controls and they are not ICE.

You make it obvious that you don't have a lot of friends.

up
Voting closed 2

Truly evil, that. We should all have to train our foreign replacement workers!

up
Voting closed 0

Sorry, if you work for these people, you're the bad guys, the brownshirts, the precursor to having secret police in America. I'm sure some people tell themselves that they're good people offsetting the work of some bad apples but in the end, it's not true.

The police have great people and terrible people, same as they always have and always will. But if you're in ICE, there's no gray area anymore. Quit or be judged harshly.

up
Voting closed 1

Most of the people detained by ICE already had criminal backgrounds, but ICE agents are the bad guys? I'm not really understanding your point of view.

up
Voting closed 1

Taking parents at hospitals with sick kids? Deporting long time residents with businesses? ICE has decided it's easier to deport non-violent people just living here trying to get a better life instead of actually targeting dangerous criminals who also fall under their jurisdiction.

What kind of person would become a ICE agent? Because they want to have power but lack the skills and temperament to become a real cop. They're just frustrated facists who have now been given unchecked power thanks to our white supremacist leaders. Just put a SS logo on their armbands already.

up
Voting closed 1

In Baltimore, a citizen of El Salvador who entered the U.S. illegally on a fraudulent passport, and was previously charged with attempted murder/conspiracy to commit murder and convicted of first degree assault. She was previously released from local custody before ICE could assume custody.

In Boston, a citizen of India who entered the U.S. illegally and who was convicted of indecent assault/battery on a person over 14 and was required to register as a sex offender.

In Denver, a citizen of Guatemala with lawful permanent legal status who was previously convicted of felony menacing, 6 DUIs, child abuse, assault and domestic violence harassment.

In Los Angeles, a citizen of Mexico and documented Colonia Chiques gang member who entered the United States illegally. At the time of his arrest, the subject rammed multiple law enforcement vehicles in an effort to evade arrest. After he was placed under arrest, a search of his person revealed a loaded handgun in his pocket. The subject was turned over to local authorities and charged with assault with a deadly weapon, probation in possession of firearm, carrying a concealed weapon and carrying a loaded firearm in public.

In New York, a citizen of Ecuador with lawful permanent resident status who was previously charged with sexual abuse of a minor and convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, and convicted of sexual abuse of a minor under 14. He was previously released from local custody before ICE could assume custody.

In Philadelphia, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, who entered the country illegally and who has previous convictions for possession of firearms. He was previously released from local custody before ICE could assume custody.

In San Francisco, a citizen of El Salvador who entered the country illegally and who has previous convictions for sex with a minor under 16. He was previously released from local custody before ICE could assume custody.

In San Jose, a citizen of Mexico who entered the U.S. on a visa and overstayed that visa for more than 10 years. He was previously convicted of felony possession and purchase of narcotics, possession of a controlled substance for sale, and felony child cruelty with the possibility of injury or death. He was previously released from local custody before ICE could assume custody.

In Seattle, a citizen of Mexico who entered the country illegally and who has previous convictions for DUI, reckless endangerment and negligent driving.

In Washington, D.C., a citizen of El Salvador who entered the country illegally and who has previous convictions for possession of an unregistered firearm and unlawful possession of ammunition.

up
Voting closed 0

Without citations, even!

Wow, like ten people ... that's as much of a threat to US safety as refusing to worship the flag!!!

up
Voting closed 1

Most of the people detained by ICE already had criminal backgrounds

up
Voting closed 0

When Trump first announced ICE deportations he said they'd deport 'the worst of the worst' Later he said ICE agents would take a 'gloves off' approach (more indiscriminate enforcement I presumed.)

When we started to see it in action in Mass, he was deporting people for showing up at meetings to get their green cards (they were married to American citizens) and at the homes of an Irish guy who runs a contracting business, and a man who works at MIT nights and runs a business during the day. These are people who we do not need to be kept safe from and who should be on a path to citizenship, and whose kids would be part of first generation Americans who achieve in service of themselves, their communities and our country.

up
Voting closed 0

Most of the people detained by ICE already had criminal backgrounds

Of people removed NOT detained by ICE officials (and according to their statistics), it was only slightly higher than 50% in 2016. If you add everyone only detained (not removed), plus those detained under 287g or Secure Communities-Priority Enforcement, it drops.

so... no.

up
Voting closed 0

That's a pretty broad brush, you realize that they have a lot of other functions. But if you want to call the guys who inspect the shipping containers for contraband "brownshirts" I guess that's your prerogative.

up
Voting closed 1

You're thinking of CBP not ICE but sure buddy

up
Voting closed 0

Maybe you should look at the front page of the ICE website before you try to patronize me.

"U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) enforces federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration to promote homeland security and public safety."

"The HSI (Homeland Security Investigations) directorate is responsible for investigating a wide range of domestic and international activities arising from the illegal movement of people and goods into, within and out of the United States."

Gee, it's almost like federal agencies can have some overlap in their duties. So yeah, "inspect" might not be the best word but it's not like they're not doing more than looking for illegal aliens and human trafficking operations.

up
Voting closed 0

Good for ICE and AG Sessions. If it happened to you at the supermarket, the T or a red light, someone cutting the line in front of you would spark outrage. Rightfully so. Rules are rules. So why is it OK for illegals to cut the line on immigration, leaving those who applied legally out of luck?

Why the loathsome reactions from the left when all ICE is doing is following established law? Didn't President Obama boast about deporting more illegals that President G.W. Bush? Really shameless of the left.

up
Voting closed 1

Fish, doesn't speak for the majority of us legal immigrants.

up
Voting closed 0

My grandparents would beg to differ. In fact recent legal immigrants I know, beg to differ.

up
Voting closed 1

Trump proposed making the line 2x as long by cutting new immigrants in half.

When you're looking for work to feed your family waiting in line isn't an option.

Capitalism makes some people very rich and others remain poor and risk their freedom to purse work across the border.

up
Voting closed 1

Your grandparents did not have permission from my ancestors.

Go back to Europe.

up
Voting closed 0

Your grandparents are probably old and white. The newer generation of immigrants is more educated and diverse and liberal.

up
Voting closed 0

If you see someone less fortunate in line you could step aside and let them go ahead. Sometimes you could even pay for their groceries.

up
Voting closed 0

Stepping aside, they're being kicked and shoved aside by an angry and entitled group of people here without appropriate documentation!

up
Voting closed 0

I haven't seen or heard any of that happening. Also have you met them? Do you know their story?

up
Voting closed 1

But they dive into politics with that press release. The last two lines are not needed, local police will help and always have, they are just not going to do the job of others.

Lately i never have a problem with the actions on either side, it's the self righteous, preaching way that the left or team Trump speak.

up
Voting closed 0

First, who made this line? Why is the line so long? Why does someone have to wait in line if the rest of their family is already paying for their groceries? Why aren't more lines open? Why is someone arbitrarily stopping the line and/or throwing people out of line and making them start over again? Why do the "rules as rules" folks feel so high and mighty just because they don't even have to get in line? What if you waited in line but the cashier just didn't like you so they threw you out of line and stomped on your groceries?

I mean, come on, FISH...you're not that naive, are you? You really think the current system is working well as currently implemented? Do you think requesting the system be improved is even possible for the people that are most affected by it (you know, people who are not citizens yet)? So, their recourse is?

up
Voting closed 0

First, who made this line?
The individuals desiring to become citizens of the USA.

Why is the line so long?
Living in the USA is desirable by many individuals outside of the USA.

Why does someone have to wait in line if the rest of their family is already paying for their groceries?
If the family members are citizens, the process becomes expedited.

Why aren't more lines open?
The US government has the right to control the flow of incoming immigrants as is most beneficial to the USA.

Why is someone arbitrarily stopping the line and/or throwing people out of line and making them start over again?
In what sense is this happening?

Why do the "rules as rules" folks feel so high and mighty just because they don't even have to get in line?
Because they were born citizens, or became citizens via the legally defined process.

What if you waited in line but the cashier just didn't like you so they threw you out of line and stomped on your groceries?
In what sense is this happening?

up
Voting closed 2

No, the line is made by the government. You could have a system where there is no line. I don't think that'd be a good idea, but the line is purely artificial to the government processes. Also, the length of the line is again purely artificial to the processes. Review one application a year and the line could stretch to infinity.

"Expedited" doesn't mean they get to leave the line. It means they get in a different line. That line might be shorter. It might be longer. It's just not the general line.

While the government controls how many lines are open, don't kid yourself into thinking that our current system is beneficial to us in any way. It's a waste of time, resources, and energy in its current form. It's under-optimized and over-wrought. It hasn't been reviewed in decades. It has never even considered the challenges of globalization nor even the greatly increased mobility humanity has gained in recent years.

People are stopped and/or thrown out of line all the time due to the arbitrary nature of the interview process at consulates all across the world. Sometimes consulates stop accepting people in for some perceived geopolitical slight from that country's government.

And to think you're better than someone else just because you're already "inside the park" is to have failed to learn the lesson of the star-bellied sneetches.

up
Voting closed 1

If it happened to you at the supermarket, the T or a red light, someone cutting the line in front of you would spark outrage. Rightfully so.

The problem with this analogy is this:

We've created a system such that it is essentially impossible to get in legally. Everyone in line in the supermarket has "cut in line". We tacitly approve this, until we happen to see someone in line whom we don't like, at which point our outrage is sparked and we kick them out.

up
Voting closed 1

Yeah, I'm sure making things easier for legal immigrants is your primary concern here.

up
Voting closed 1

Please argue the wisdom against "prioritizing aliens with criminal convictions, pending criminal charges, known gang members and affiliates, immigration fugitives and those who re-entered the U.S. after deportation". This seems like common sense. Criminals? Gang associations? How is keeping these people in the local community a good thing?

up
Voting closed 1

Let's base our assessment on what ICE is actually doing, and not what their PR releases say they are doing.

up
Voting closed 0

1) Mr. Illegal comes on a tourist visa to see his brother, Mr. Greencard.
2) He has a kid with Ms. Legal. He joins his brother's business to provide for them.
3) He marries Ms. Legal. He applies for a status change to get his green card application started.
4) He's denied the status change because he didn't come on a fiance visa (hell, he didn't even know Ms. Legal until he was here to see his brother). He's told to get a waiver from the consulate in his home country. His family can't afford for him to leave and not know if he can return (if the consulate refuses his waiver, he'd be stuck outside the US).
5) His tourist visa runs out. He stays for his family.
6) A drunk at a bar one night gives him shit for "prolly being an illegal mexican" even though he's Dominican. The drunk starts shoving him towards the door. A fight breaks out and Mr. Illegal is arrested in the melee. He can't afford a lawyer and his court-appointed defense tells him his best bet is to plea out for time served. Fortunately, he's in a sanctuary city so he's not deported and he gets back to work.
7) When he drops his girl off at school, ICE picks him up as an illegal with a criminal background.
8) Ms. Legal and his daughter can't afford to move to the Dominican Republic where he's being deported to, have to go on public assistance, lose their apartment, etc. even though they're both US citizens.

up
Voting closed 0

That's kind of a flawed scenario, don't you think? If you have a child with or marry someone who is illegal, isn't there an assumed inherited risk? the person would just stick around with blind hope that it will all just work out? Why would you put yourself in that position in the first place? I don't agree with that at all. What I do agree with is that we need immigration reform with additional avenues of entry.

up
Voting closed 1

Cause yeah the sensible thing to do is to have "Are you here legally?" be the first question on first dates. /sarc

up
Voting closed 1

It all depends if you prioritize government bureaucracy over family and love.

up
Voting closed 1

The question was "how is keeping these people in the local community a good thing?".

Do you think Mr. Illegal being deported is a good thing just because Ms. Legal took a risk by not knowing every intimate detail of our immigration laws and just thought that marrying the man she loved would make him a citizen? Your answer amounts to "the local community is better off because she knew the risks when she took them". It's a non sequitur.

Unless you're saying that the scenario as I described it would never happen. That every person who falls in love with someone born in another country would check their green card status before marrying them or having a kid with them. Because even if you're right, those people are still in love. But now they have a fucked up situation where when the tourist visa runs out, Mr. Illegal has to go home first...and now he has to figure out a way back that will let him continue a life with his lover until they can decide whether to have kids and/or get married (because you prevented that from happening by making her prioritize his status over their love). They're not far enough along in their relationship to get a fiance visa and yet if he comes back on another tourism visa and they do decide to get married soon after, it can actually appear like visa fraud and screw up his ability to get a green card then too!

And if you look at my scenario and want to nitpick any of the timing or details, just realize that reordering the story a bit (maybe the visa runs out before the wedding instead of after, or he gets deported while the application for status change he submits is still pending, etc.) suddenly leads back to the same point of having him deported and at MOST he got the raw end of a bad charge from a bar fight because of our fucked up legal system. Deporting him didn't solve anything and only created more problems for our society...which was the whole point of the original question.

up
Voting closed 1

From Joe Curtatone and Mahty Walsh on this travesty or will they just have their social media monkeys make statements of opposition on Twitter? Kind of makes you wonder why terrorism is now Federal policy and which local shitheel has the balls to call it that.

up
Voting closed 1

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice today filed a Freedom-of-Information request to learn more about the Massachusetts raids.

The federal government is punishing us for following the rule of law. Using the full force and strength of federal enforcement to punitively target immigrants in Massachusetts is an extreme abuse of power. Raiding our cities and towns is a waste of scarce taxpayer dollars, and creates a climate of fear in vulnerable communities. This enforcement activity makes victims and witnesses of crime less likely to cooperate with law enforcement, and renders us all unsafe.

FOIA request.

up
Voting closed 0

Lol, they arrested a guy convicted of witness intimidation in this sweep.

up
Voting closed 2

Lol, they arrested a guy convicted of witness intimidation in this sweep.

Nobody's denying that they got some bad guys off the street.

Consider this analogy: The cops jack up every 18-year-old kid living in East Boston. People say "Whoa, that's wildly unreasonable," and the cops' defenders say, "But look, they arrested this MS-13 member. Are you saying that's a bad thing?"

up
Voting closed 2

So if in this instance ice detained 50 violent offenders and nobody else you are good with it?

up
Voting closed 1

It's about changing the rules after the fact.

It's illegal (but not criminal) to be here without a visa.
It's illegal (but not criminal) to drive over the speed limit.

The unofficial position of our country, borne out by practice, has been, if you are here illegally, but otherwise keep your nose clean, pay your taxes, and don't commit crimes, nobody's going to bother you.
The unofficial position of our state, borne out by practice, has been, if you keep it to around 5 mph over the limit, don't drive like a jackass, nobody's going to bother you.

Now how would you feel about the state police starting to pull toll booth timestamps and video from the Mass. Pike from 1998 to 2000, say, and started issuing speeding tickets to everyone whose entry and exit times showed they had been speeding?

The problem is, we've been wildly inconsistent about what the rules actually are. Last time we tried to get seriously tough about our border, it ended up being the business interests who depended upon migrant labor that ultimately pressured the government to stop; since then we've had de facto legal illegal immigration.

up
Voting closed 0